"The latest report on the oil-for-food programme at the United Nations and a guilty plea by a procurement officer provide the most troubling evidence yet of criminality at the UN. The commission investigating the programme charges that Benon Sevan, who ran it, received kickbacks. The panel concludes that Mr Sevan deposited at least $147,000 [£82,000] in cash generated by Iraqi oil transactions and did not receive the money from an aunt, as he has claimed ...

"What's striking is how small-bore the corruption he is accused of looks against the backdrop of a $65bn [£36bn] ... programme. The guilty plea from the UN procurement officer, Aleksandr Yakovlev, had little to do with the oil-for-food programme, but underscores how corruption may have infected many procurement programmes at the organisation."

Washington Post Editorial, August 10

"It is true, of course, that the investigating panel led by Paul A Volcker is not a legal body, and could not force Mr Sevan to cooperate ... [But] what is most worrying about Mr Sevan's insistence that he is nothing more than a victim of 'well-established UN-bashers' is that others still seem to feel some sympathy with that point of view. On Monday, Mark Malloch Brown, the chief-of-staff to the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, repeated one of his boss's favourite metaphors, chastising the media for focusing 'on the little black dots' of corruption rather than the ... people and companies who made the ... programme such a 'success'.

"The UN bureaucracy has come a long way in recognising the need for deep institutional reforms. Yet Mr Annan's failure to understand that the oil-for-food programme was corrupt at its heart ... is disturbing."

National Post Editorial, Canada, August 10

"The evidence assembled by the [inquiry] is sufficient to justify charges against Mr Sevan ... For that to happen, a US court will need Mr Annan to lift the diplomatic protections that keep Mr Sevan immune from prosecution. It is the least he can do ...

"It is doubtful Mr Annan has the fortitude to address the allegations of rampant corruption at UN headquarters. But at the very least, the secretary general must not stand in the way of the courts."

New York Post Editorial, August 10

"Mr Sevan [is] right on one point: if the various investigations end with him and Mr Yakovlev, then the whole affair will have been a whitewash of those really responsible for the world's worst political-financial scandal ...

"Mr Annan, who championed diplomatic moves that would have left Saddam Hussein in power, can't be let off the hook ... Whether or not he bears any criminal responsibility, Mr Annan oversaw a scandal of immense proportions that made a mockery of what the UN claimed was a humanitarian effort ... As the old saw goes, the fish 'stinks from the head'. And the oil-for-food stench will remain pungent as long as the UN's current head remains on the job."

Wall Street Journal Editorial, August 9

"Imagine an American administration in which the attorney general secretly derives nearly half his income from the Gambino crime family. Imagine, too, that this hypothetical AG is a longstanding confidant of the president. That is what Mr Volcker's investigation ... has now demonstrated was roughly the case with Mr Annan's United Nations ...

"Mr Sevan's graft is reprehensible, but the real scandal is that Saddam ... was able to manipulate the oil-for-food programme and bend the UN to his will for such comparatively tiny sums. That didn't happen because of UN oversight failures; it happened because of the UN's political commitment to continued dealings with Saddam."

Independent Editorial, August 9

"It is important to bear in mind the context of this scandal ... The oil-for-food programme was administered by the UN security council's sanctions committee ... The US was a member of [that] committee and - according to a report published by Democrat minority members of the senate investigations committee - turned a blind eye to the former Iraqi regime's trade in oil ...

"But perhaps the most important piece of context to bear in mind ... is the opposition the UN displayed to the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 ... The pressure being brought to bear over oil-for-food must be seen as part of [the Bush administration's] attempt to discredit the UN for its stance over Iraq. George Bush's provocative choice of John Bolton ... as UN ambassador must also be seen as part of this campaign."

Chicago Tribune Editorial, August 9

"In appointing Mr Bolton as [the US] ambassador to the UN last week, Mr Bush alluded to the need to reform and re-energise the organisation. Monday's report ... should reinforce the message that the UN is ever more deeply mired in scandal ...

"It's not clear whether Mr Bolton will embarrass the president who dispatched him or the opponents who derided him as a bully. We'd bet, though, that he won't be on the take. Nor will he put what remains of the UN's credibility up for sale to the highest bidder. These days, that is what passes for high praise at UN headquarters."